Jharkhand High Court
Bandhan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1086 of 2018
1. Bandhan Yadav, son of late Bodhi Yadav
2. Rupni @ Tupni Devi @ Tukni @ Rukni Devi, wife of Bandhan Yadav
3. Kartik Kumar Yadav, son of Bandhan Yadav
All residents of village Arari, PO Jantajaridih, PS Birni, District Giridih
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl. PP
---------------
Order No. 11/ Dated: 08th December 2022
I.A. No. 276 of 2022 and I.A. No. 4860 of 2022
These applications have been assigned to DB-III by an order
dated 09th June 2022 passed on administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.
2. I.A. No. 4860 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the appellant
no. 2- Rupni @ Tupni Devi @ Tukni @ Rukni Devi who is wife of Bandhan
Yadav.
3. I.A. No. 276 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the appellant
no. 1- Bandhan Yadav.
4. These appellants have been convicted and sentenced to RI for
life and fine of Rs. 30,000/- each under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the appellant no. 1 is father-in-law and the appellant no. 2 is
mother-in-law of the victim lady and they are in jail custody for about five
years.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants draws our attention to
the medical evidence to submit that the victim has committed suicide by
jumping into the well and that appears to be so because no serious injury has
been found on the person of Kaushalya Devi.
7. Opposing the prayer for suspension of sentence, Mrs. Priya
Shreshtha, the learned Spl. PP submits that there is a finding of guilt
recorded by the trial Court against the appellants and on the basis of some
doubt arising from the medical evidence sentence awarded to the appellants
may not be suspended during pendency of the present criminal appeal.
8. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl. PP has further submitted
that there were some injuries on the person of Kaushalya Devi which have
remained unexplained.
9. In the Court, PW5 has stated in his evidence that on 19 th July
2010 at about 12:00 noon he conducted the postmortem examination on the
dead body of Kaushalya Devi and on examination of the dead body he found
the following injuries:
Rigor mortis was absent in upper limb and present in lower
limb.
Decomposition-Nil.
Following antimortem external injuries were found present-
Bleeding from nostril present. Abrasion of size 1"x1/2" below
left eye.
Abrasion- size 1"x1/2" on right shoulder both injuries were
caused by hard and blunt object.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence tendered by PW5 and
other evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned
counsel for the appellants has contended that award of maximum
punishment of RI for life under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code is
not proper.
11. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. A.K. Sahani, the
learned counsel for the appellants refers to the judgment in "State of Punjab
v. Manjit Singh and Ors" AIR 2009 SC 2888 and "Hem Chand v. State of
Haryana" (1994) 6 SCC 727.
12. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the criminal
appeal being taken up for hearing in the next few years.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the
case, the appellants, namely, Bandhan Yadav (in IA No. 276 of 2022) and
Rupni @ Tupni Devi @ Tukni @ Rukni Devi (in I.A No. 4860 of 2022)
shall be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in Sessions
Trial No. 210 of 2011/Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2011, on the conditions that:
(i) they shall disclose their present address and mobile number
to the Investigating Officer of the case, and;
(ii) they shall remain physically present or through their
authorized counsel in the Court whenever this criminal appeal is
listed for hearing in the Court, however, if no one appears on
their behalf on the day when this criminal appeal is listed on
Board for hearing the State may file an application for recall of
this order.
14. I.A. No. 276 of 2022 and I.A. No. 4860 of 2022 stand allowed,
in the aforesaid terms.
15. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned
and the concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Tanuj/-
